Watched: 04/02/2026
Format: BluRay
Viewing: First
Director: Hitchcock
This was my first time watching Rope (1948). For some reason I have massive gaps in my Hitchcock viewing, and I do a poor job of just getting over myself and putting the movies on.
From even back when I was in film school, I came to believe that this movie was mostly just one big technical trick, but that the movie itself wasn't very good - which is why I never bothered watching the film. The description was always that it was a lesser movie. But I literally don't know what the @#$% those people are talking about. Rope slapped.
Yes, it is several long takes stitched together - and a technical trick trying to do something novel where the technology just wasn't there. Film reels were only so long in 1948, and camera equipment was hefty. And I'm kind of left to wonder if Hitchcock watched Lady in the Lake and thought "that's not the trick. The trick is to let the camera be the camera but keep it running - let the audience feel they're in the room."
And, especially in the third act, I found all of that incredibly effective.
- Jimmy Stewart
- John Dall
- Farley Granger
- an older society matron who has no idea what is going on and is solid comedic relief
And I think this movie would pair well with Strangers on a Train, which also sees people making a game of murder.
Based on a play, which, in turn, was based on the real-life case of Leopold and Loeb, who thrill-killed a 14-year-old boy - believing themselves to be intellectually superior and capable of the perfect crime - Rope must have been something in theaters.
Yes, the technical tricks, cinematography, sound design, management of time, etc... all were interesting. But at the heart of it, the movie starts as a game of murder - like so many plays and movies folks turn up to not really thinking much about the morality of what's at stake. And by the end of the film, it's ripped apart the notion of murder being harmless - of anyone's belief in their superiority giving them free reign to trample on others. It's a notion that must have left post-War audiences hushed as the grim realities of what that line of thinking had done across Europe still played out in international courts.
I think often about the commentary on Psycho where the speaker mentions how Hitchcock makes you cheer along Norman Bates and worry for him that he won't get away with murder. And this movie seems almost a reaction by Hitchcock to what he must have realized he was doing with the lack of consequence for murder and mayhem, "killing" people on screen and famous for the games his characters acted out to create "thrillers". Still, it's the rare movie I've seen by Hitchcock that pivots to ponder those things in a way that feels like it obliterates the notion of the clever movie murderer and drags them into the real world - and exposes them not as a twisted genius, but just the narcissistic sociopath they are - proving nothing to no one.
And, it puts on trial, they very notion of harming others in the name of perceived inferiority and superiority - that it's nothing of the sort. It's the cruelty of mad dogs and people creating legends about themselves in their heads. Not that any of that is relevant to anything.
Don't think I'm just skipping over the technical tricks. Deciding to keep the format of a play, the movie basically unspools in real time. This just wasn't really something movies did, and may be the first (I didn't scroll to the end of this list, but I feel confident I'm right). And as a movie taking place at the edge of evening, we get to see the change in light and mood as night descends, reflecting the events of the film. Out the large window we see steam blowing from pipes, clouds move. It's a hell of a thing.
Further, as things get more frenetic, the use of the camera shifts from showing things in medium shot to losing focus, following action as conversation happens off screen, asking us to split our attention. And, of course, as the final reveal occurs the flashing lights of advertising outside the apartment window reflect our mood. Just gorgeously done.
Stewart manages to be perfectly Jimmy Stewart - giving gravitas and grounding to slippery material and making it feel immediate. John Dall's narcissistic Brandon must have been a delight for him to play, and Farley Granger is probably the one modern audiences find odd. But I think the choices are all solid. Per the relationship: "It's queer coded" I'd heard - and no it's not. It's not subtext, that's just text for 1948. Probably not helping at all that homosexuality was seen as a mental illness until recent decades.
Anyway - loved this movie. If Broadway is going to keep making plays out of movies, they could do worse than finding the original play's script, using this adaptation (by Hume Cronyn for some reason?) and bringing it back.
Shocker. I thought a Hitchcock movie was really good.
No comments:
Post a Comment